free counter with statistics Lost in Translation Review | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

lost_in_translation_movie.jpg
Let's Never Come Here Again

Lost in Translation / Henry Britt

Overappreciated Gems | April 2, 2009 | Comments (145)

Science fiction auteur Frederick Pohl once said that “Nothing is so good that somebody, somewhere, will not hate it,” something I’ve found to be universally true. For every fanboy there is an equally rabid response on the opposite end of the spectrum. The difficulty comes in justifying that hatred to the aforementioned fanboy. So it is with a gleeful heart and a reluctant head that I submit to you an overappreciated film for the ages: Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation.

Starring Bill Murray and Scarlett Johanssen, Lost in Translation follows the travails of Bob Harris (Murray), an actor who’s come to Tokyo to film a whiskey commercial, an obvious metapoke at the selfsame Hollywood trend and Coppola’s own father. In the course of his short stay, Bob (who is married, if not entirely happily) chances to meet Charlotte (Johanssen), the bored and lonely wife of a photographer (Giovanni Ribisi) who is gallivanting about Tokyo, consorting with the glitterati he shoots. The two form an initially tentative relationship, which slowly progresses into a romantic attachment as the two explore the foreign city together. Their burgeoning relationship is strained when Bob sleeps with the singer in the hotel bar where the two met, alienating Charlotte. The film, after facilitating a reunion of sorts, sees the two part at the airport as both are about to leave Tokyo to return to their respective miseries.

My major beef with the film lies in two key areas. First, and least bothersome, is the script, penned by Coppola (for which she won the Oscar that Bill Murray so richly deserved). The plotting was, in a word, dull. I mean, The English Patient dull. There, I said it, and it’s out there. I found myself praying for grim death about halfway through, but kept backtracking, saying to my delusional self “No, wait, certainly SOMETHING will happen at some point in this mess…Bill Murray is so phenomenal, how can it be bad…something’s going to happen.” But it doesn’t. Ever. Happen. The film beats the life out of the viewer with its abominable subtlety, and then, just when you think you’re about to get some sort of payoff, a whisper. A fucking whisper. Perhaps I’m spoiled. Perhaps such things are lost on me. But I rather think it’s an insult to my intelligence that, as a viewer, I’m not allowed to hear Bob’s final words to Charlotte, before a brief, chaste kiss parts them forever. The ending is like the amateur drag show version of The Bridges of Madison County…a tall, unfulfilling disappointment, all unwieldy knees and elbows and too much damn rouge.

My second and vastly more taxing annoyance with Lost in Translation was the performance of old Mushmouth, Scarlett Johansson. Some critics praised her for her simple take on a beautiful woman in an unhappy marriage. They’re wrong. Johansson vacillates between wistfully bored when she’s alone, overly pleased when she’s with Bob, and pouty when she’s with anyone else. It’s a three-chord performance à la Keanu Reeves, and it doesn’t fly, especially not when stacked up against the brilliance of Murray. Acting is never more than a series of moments strung together like Christmas lights on a tree, and she misses almost every major beat in one way or another. The only time she shows an ounce of absolute sincerity is in a scene just before the halfway mark, as Charlotte and Bob explore Tokyo, running through the streets with Charlie Brown (Fumihiro Hayashi), singing karaoke, and generally being comfortable in their own skins. The two share a cigarette alone in a hallway, and as Charlotte leans her head on Bob’s shoulder, a trace of a smile plays across her face. I believe it to be the only moment of real acting old Mushmouth has ever done, and while it’s a damn beautiful moment, you can’t put lipstick on a pig and call it anything other than gussied up pork chops.

The only saving graces of the film were Murray and his insanely touching and soft handling of the dialogue, and the direction. Murray is utterly brilliant, and adept at managing to combine the pain and loneliness in Bob with his awareness of his own body and special brand of humor, creating a captivating character study. From something as obvious as his encounter with a prostitute sent to his hotel room to something as understated as a phone conversation with his wife or the look on his face while waiting in a strip club, Murray shines. Coppola’s direction, while not genius, is inspired. Obviously maturing from her first film, the slightly over-dramatized but infinitely more enjoyable The Virgin Suicides, Coppola evinces a firm grasp of the subtle interactions of people in love, and indifference.

But in spite of Murray turning in a performance that well may be the crowning glory of his career (though, for my money, his turn in Rushmore was far more worthy) and the steady hand of Coppola, Lost in Translation, to me, sinks like a stone. The sad part is that it comes close enough to perfection to make its shortcomings so glaringly obvious. “I’m just completely lost,” Bob Harris intones to his distant wife at one point, and that’s just the feeling I had while watching it…lost in a vision that flies just off course enough to make it a nightmare.


Henry Britt is a writer from Houston who likes coffee and laughing at the misfortunes of others, in that order. You can email him or leave a comment below.


← "Cupid" Review | Bruno Trailer →



Comments

No you fucking didn't! I have to go now, but I will deal with you later, young man!

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 2, 2009 3:19 PM

You and me are fucking done professionally. DA DA DA.

Posted by: Haggis at April 2, 2009 3:20 PM

Acting is never more than a series of moments strung together like Christmas lights on a tree

While your metaphor is lovely and carefully crafted, it's useless. What does that mean? That's like saying writing is no more than a series of words strung together. It's also incorrect, and if Hollywood producers and directors share your belief, no wonder we're saddled with so much weak-ass acting.

I'll agree with you that Johanssen is overrated.

Posted by: marya at April 2, 2009 3:25 PM

ugh, why such a boring standard-format review; start with a quote, end with one. i expect originality and style on this site.

Posted by: jasperr92 at April 2, 2009 3:25 PM

I fast-forwarded through the same amount of this movie that I did "Marie Antoinette."

Occasional moments of beauty overshadowed by what felt like 12 hours of wondering why I was watching nothing happen.

Posted by: twig at April 2, 2009 3:25 PM

Great review Henry, though I'm on the "I still love this movie so THERE" side of the debate. And I thought Johansson was really good.

Posted by: Julie at April 2, 2009 3:25 PM

I really liked this movie when it came out, and I felt like I was literally the only one who did.

And I still do. I think I'll watch it tonight.

Also, what the hell was with the full on ass shot for the first 2 minutes of the movie? I mean, awesome, look at those cheeks, but what the hell? Are we lost in her panties?

I was.

Posted by: annoyingmouse at April 2, 2009 3:27 PM

Soooo....you didn't like it? Screw you...this is the only time I've ever liked ScarJo. And Bill Murray is untouchable. If he says it's good, that's good enough for me.

Could've done with less wistful shots and more resolution, though...I'll give you that.

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at April 2, 2009 3:30 PM

I'm sorry. But your entire review has been rendered moot for your failure to mention that opening shot of Scarlett Johansson's ass in sheer panties.

Because that scene, actually, is the greatest acting she's ever done.

Posted by: Withnail at April 2, 2009 3:31 PM

I completely agree. The movie had been built up so much that by the time I saw it, I was expecting greatness and was sorely disappointed. I didn't get at ALL what the big deal was.

Posted by: Sheri at April 2, 2009 3:32 PM

I'm gonna be the oversensitive one and say I thought it was wicked racist. Besides the fact that white people in colored places movies bore me, I was watching this with my Japanese friend and he made me turn it off after the commercial sequence. Japanese language ah sooo funny not ingrish hee hee hee hee.

Posted by: Pheagan at April 2, 2009 3:33 PM

Mr. Britt, I think I may have a man crush on you. I had such an issue staying awake during this movie that I was beginning to wonder if someone had spiked my rum.

You've pretty well hit every point that I would make dead on centre. In fact I can't even add anything else since, with the exception of Murray's performance, I really can't remember it. There were pictures, there were words, there was ScarJo in panties. That's about it.

Posted by: admin at April 2, 2009 3:33 PM

I enjoyed this movie. However, I did spend the quite a bit of time yelling at Scarlett Johansson to put on some freakin' pants already. If it's cold enough inside to layer on top, there's no excuse for not wearing pants.

Posted by: Jeni at April 2, 2009 3:33 PM

I was slow in getting to this movie and had heard from many people how great it was, definitely did not live up to what I had heard. I just did not care about the characters. Johansson was tolerable--I thought her blase, sort of disconnection from the world around her worked and matched well with Coppola's screenplay and direction. Of course, now we know that this was not a character choice, but appears to be the only thing she can portray.

Posted by: maceo at April 2, 2009 3:34 PM

I like this movie a lot, but there's something about Sofia Coppola that feels sad (except for her AWESOME name). I don't know, whenever I watch her films I get the feeling that there's something missing. Laughter, perhaps? This doesn't apply to Marie Antoinette, but her other films are so grim. She's lucky to have such a GORGEOUS first name to light up the credits, though.

Posted by: Sofía at April 2, 2009 3:38 PM

I think the reviewer is missing the point, it was SUPPOSED to be dull. The two characters were in despair, alone, in a completely foreign culture.

It wasn't supposed to be Black Rain dude.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 2, 2009 3:38 PM

She's lucky to have such a GORGEOUS first name to light up the credits, though.

Posted by: Sofía at April 2, 2009 3:38 PM

---------------------------------------------

Meh, "Sofia" is just a pretentious Sophie...


Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 2, 2009 3:40 PM

For the record, I only saw 30 seconds of this film because I was trying to pirate another DVDRip from the Nets. (Ah, college.) All I saw was Scarlett Johanssen's panty clad bottom, and that told me that A.) I had downloaded the wrong movie and B.) This was the high point of the film.

Part of me hoped I was wrong, but thanks to you Henry, I never have to actually watch this movie. You've confirmation of my fears, and now I can go spend that time I would have given this film on continuing to watch BSG from the beginning. (I'm still on Season 1, Disc 1, Episode 2; so I need all the time I can get.)

Posted by: Doctor Controversy at April 2, 2009 3:41 PM

I think this movie would work a lot better if it had subtitles and the subtitles said something completely different to what the characters were saying. That way the true meaning of the movie would be....

(wait for it... wait for it...)

"Lost In Translation"!!!!


Ooooooh, SNAP!!!!

*Sofía drops it like it's hot, giggles*

Posted by: Sofía at April 2, 2009 3:42 PM

'There were pictures, there were words, there was ScarJo in panties. That's about it"

If a movie comes out with nothing but this as its plot outline, I'd've already preordered my ticket.

Bonus if she doesn't speak throughout the rest of the movie.

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at April 2, 2009 3:44 PM

Posted by: Sofía at April 2, 2009 3:42 PM

GROAN!!!

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at April 2, 2009 3:46 PM

Thank you! when I say I don't like this movie I always get looked at like I'm some poor schmuck who doesn't know anything about poetry and the beauty of cinema. Poetry my fat ass. Though I love Bill Murray's character and I liked the idea of a movie about people that try to move forward but if fact only gets a glimpse of life in a sort of weird "what if" bubble, I always felt that Scarlett Johansson's character was a dumb way for Sophia Coppola to somehow justify her poor poor life in Tokyo when she was lonely and sad and so desperate and lost and working for motherfucking Louis Vuitton, or who the fact she was working for. It's not that i'm a poor bitter bitch (which I am, but that's beside the point), I simply couldn't relate with this smug that is in tokyo and all she does is staying in her fucking hotel cause her husband isn't around and she doesn't know what she wants to do with her life. Guess what bitch? after graduation I also didn't know what to do with my life (and guess what? 3 years later, still no clue. does anyone have any advices? seriously, I'm desperate here) and I also stayed in a hotel all the time, but cause I was working in one! you dumb ass moron!

Posted by: rio at April 2, 2009 3:47 PM

I really wanted to like Lost in Translation. I guess I would call myself a Murray fanboy, I even liked The Life Aquatic. But Translation is just unwatchably boring.

Posted by: EricD at April 2, 2009 3:50 PM

Bill Murray. Bill fucking Murray. The rest doesn't matter.

Posted by: MG at April 2, 2009 3:52 PM

I think that ScattJo's performance at the time was appreciated because it seemed so natural for the portrayal of spoiled white girl from America. (For me, I think hanging out with Anna Faris' character would have been much more fun.) It's easy to say in retrospect that it sucked mainly because we now have the advantage of knowing that she acts the same exact way in every. single. movie.

Plus, aside from the unnatural perkiness of her boobs, she looks like every fat girl in college who smelled like chapstick and the milk left over after eating Frosted Flakes. Honestly, she looked like a bag of anuses next to Penelope Cruz in VCB.

Posted by: Groovekiller at April 2, 2009 3:53 PM

THANK YOU.

I firmly hold that this is hands-down the most overrated movie of all time. It bored me to distraction and I am deathly bored by Scarlett Johanssen and her woodeness to this day.

Posted by: figgy at April 2, 2009 3:54 PM

And I absolutely loathe movies about rich white people who are in these fascinating places and do nothing but be bored and lonely and not understand the culture. Make an effort and stop fucking whining already. Ugh, I hate this movie.

Posted by: figgy at April 2, 2009 4:00 PM

I agree with this review and look forward to more Overappreciated Gems...until you review a movie that I love. There will be fisticuffs when that happens.

Posted by: dave at April 2, 2009 4:00 PM

Nice review, Henry! I pretty much disagree with every single aspect of it, but I thought it was a well thought out review.

I love this movie. It makes my heart hurt and it *is* slow, but I like it that way. Makes it more painful. I'm not a huge fan of ScarJo, but I don't hate her either, I thought she was spot on in this. She's young, far from home, bored, lonely and attracted to an older guy who makes her laugh and pays attention to her. And he is far from home, bored, lonely and attracted to a younger woman who thinks he's funny and pays attention to him. Very alluring for both. The fact that they're each isolated makes their pairing even more necessary. They NEED each other. But then it's time for the real world. They're not *supposed* to be together in the real world.

That's extremely inarticulate of me, but I'm at work and trying to write this without getting caught. Again, great review and I look forward to reading more of your stuff!

PS: Pheagan, I don't see it as racist, although I have heard that several times. To me, it's not that different from movies set in Minnesota or somewhere the accent and customs are mocked. I live in Ohio, our accents, clothes, customs, eating habits, sports teams, etc. are made fun of all the time. It's just a regional observation and I don't take it as being insensitive or hateful toward Ohioans.

Posted by: Lainey at April 2, 2009 4:01 PM

I agree with you, Britt. I love me some Murray, and there are worse things to look at than Johanassanason, but this movie was snoozeville. SNOOZEVILLE!

Posted by: Skitz at April 2, 2009 4:02 PM

If a movie comes out with nothing but this as its plot outline, I'd've already preordered my ticket.

Bonus if she doesn't speak throughout the rest of the movie.

I would agree however your second point cannot be a bonus. It is manditory.

I'm going to go watch What About Bob? I remember it, and it makes me happy.

Posted by: admin at April 2, 2009 4:06 PM

I'm a Bill Murray fan, and I agree he should have got the Oscar for this picture instead of Sofia. Not so much a fan of ScarJo. Probably won't watch this picture again unless I think doing so will help me get laid.

Posted by: simian raticus at April 2, 2009 4:07 PM

While your metaphor is lovely and carefully crafted, it's useless. What does that mean?

Actually, to this trained actor, this makes quite a bit of sense - we are often taught the the best actors are the ones who live in each moment, moment-to-moment - and that a scene is a string of these moments (or "beats") and only works together when you don't skip a beat.... rather like an old-school string of lights that won't work when a bulb is out.

Get lazy and skip over a moment, and you get a string that won't light up. Sounds like ScarJo all over.

Posted by: Tammy at April 2, 2009 4:09 PM

Look at that! All these people are spelling Scarlett's last name right!

Posted by: Jay at April 2, 2009 4:10 PM

I'm another hater here. Call me spoiled, but I like some kind of plot when I watch a movie, even if it's simplistic. If I want to watch two bored miserable people not fuck each other, I just turn around and look at the last 30 years of my parents life, thank you very much.

Good review, though.

Posted by: lateformyfuneral at April 2, 2009 4:11 PM

but this movie was snoozeville. SNOOZEVILLE!

::pictures Skitz in suspenders and smoking a cigar::

Posted by: jM at April 2, 2009 4:13 PM

I've never seen this movie, and I've never had any desire to. I guess just knowing that ol'flounderlips is in it is enough to turn me away for good.

Posted by: Kolby at April 2, 2009 4:13 PM

@ Admin: Baby steps out the door, baby steps on the elevator...

I didn't quite take from this that it was rich white people who were overprivileged and unappreciative. Bob Harris is a rich actor yes, but he's a fully realized person who has insecurities and longings which are exacerbated by his unfamiliar surroundings. And Charlotte was young and unsure of herself, and in this big city with no one to talk to...I don't know. I just loved how the claustrophobia and bustle of Tokyo brought these two strangers together.

I TOTALLY understand why people hate it though. I saw it with my old roommate, and she wanted to shiv me halfway through.

Posted by: Julie at April 2, 2009 4:13 PM

If I want to watch two bored miserable people not fuck each other, I just turn around and look at the last 30 years of my parents life, thank you very much.

Hee!! And aw.

Posted by: Julie at April 2, 2009 4:15 PM

Dustin, I could not agree with you MORE. I kept waiting in vain for something, anything to happen. When the credits played after that fucking whisper, I think I remember exclaiming, 'That's IT??' THAT'S what all the hype was about?' Good grief.

Posted by: birdgal at April 2, 2009 4:15 PM

Pretty much all I remember about this movie is that I had the misfortune of going to see it with someone who refuses to leave movies, no matter what.

figgy, I agree 100% about watching privileged people be bored and uncomfortable.

OK, so Coppola set out to make a dull movie. Good for her, she succeeded! If I plan out a boring something, and follow through, should I get accolades or should I get told, "Hey, that's a stupid aspiration"?

Posted by: frumpiefox at April 2, 2009 4:20 PM

Jay I totally cut and pasted from the review. I never would have gotten it on my own.

Posted by: Jeni at April 2, 2009 4:21 PM

Totally agree with everyone.

Not enough explosions.

And no one dies. Or yells.

How else can there be drama?!

Posted by: Macafee at April 2, 2009 4:23 PM

STOP IT, STOP IT with the "no plot" argument.

Can we? there IS a FUCKING PLOT there!

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 2, 2009 4:23 PM

Jay...I'm starting to worry about you.

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at April 2, 2009 4:26 PM

I guess this film caught me in the right mood, but I rented it one drowsy Sunday afternoon and was mesmerized by it. I particularly remember Murray's quiet frustration with what he's doing for money (the whiskey ads in Japan, etc). I agree--Murray is amazing in this film.

It was sort of a very slow burn, because I really bought into their friendship of circumstance. I loved that it didn't ever get sexual. They were both trapped, bored. And found a temporary companion to make it a bit more bearable. That's all.

Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen at April 2, 2009 4:26 PM

I really enjoyed this movie, but I honestly don't remember if it was only because I thought at the time that I was supposed to enjoy it, or if it actually entertained me. I do think that "ScarJo" is a vapid waste of mental goop but she's absolutely fanfuckingtastically gorgeous. I mean, wow, seriously.

I think I'm going to have to watch this again to see if I still like it. Odds are I will, seeing as how it's Bill Murray and I lurves him to death, but we'll see.

Posted by: Snath at April 2, 2009 4:26 PM

I think, frumpiefox, that's the same reason why I hated her 'Marie Antoinette' so much. She gave it this whole stupid 'poor little rich girl' and simplified it just to that, when MA was infinitely more interesting than just some rich girl who had bad luck. I hated that movie, too.

Posted by: figgy at April 2, 2009 4:28 PM

The final whisper revealed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MV7Sym8bIQ

Posted by: Ginger at April 2, 2009 4:28 PM

Oh but just for the record: this isn't a flick I would buy on DVD and I haven't ever watched it twice. It's a one-timer. But there most definitely is a plot. Before I saw this film, I had just seen Rushmore and before that, I only thought of Murray as he was in Stripes and Caddyshack, so this just added to being impressed by the older Murray.

Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen at April 2, 2009 4:29 PM

Only if by plot you mean: A study in how to have so many opportunities and yet still manage to lead boring and whiny lives because ...well, who the hell cares why, at that point it's time to turn the dvd player off and do something to wake my brain up.

Posted by: lateformyfuneral at April 2, 2009 4:29 PM

Thank you, BSlim! That WAS the plot. It was a moment in time. It was two lonely people finding some comfort in each other. Maybe waking up enough to change their lives a little when it was over, but if not, at least they had that moment together.

Posted by: Lainey at April 2, 2009 4:29 PM

In that case, I'm very glad I didn't waste any time on Marie Antoinette.

After all the hoopla about wearing Chuck Taylors under the big frou-frou dresses, (how positively subversive! I'll bet Ol' Dunsty had on Invader Zim undies, too!*) I figured it would drive me bonkers.


*That's not a knock on Invader Zim. I love Invader Zim, so there.

Posted by: frumpiefox at April 2, 2009 4:37 PM

@figgy: I don't think she made Marie Antoinette blameless. I think one of the themes in her movies, starting with Virgin Suicides is that Coppola shows things happen and then lets the viewer decide for his or herself what they think (and with MA, she was going off the Antonia Fraser bio, so that lends itself to a more sympathetic view anyway).

Posted by: claire at April 2, 2009 4:41 PM

I didn't enjoy Lost in Translation but I saw it when it came out and not since so my memory could be flawed. I remember disliking it mainly for ScarJo. I first saw her in Ghost World, hated her, and haven't seen anything to change my mind.
Great review. It gives me plenty of defendable reasons now OTHER than the ScarJo thing.

Posted by: king at April 2, 2009 4:42 PM

I hate Ho-hanssen. I utterly, completely, thoroughly hate Ho-hanssen. I refuse to watch anything that she is in. Everyone talks about her in Ghost World- but, c'mon, that was like ten years ago and she was a kid.

Have you sat through Girl with a Pearl Earring? I had free tickets and went with a friend of mine. We spent the rest of the night laughing at how pouty she was and immitating her cow-eyed stare.

Yes, Bill Murray rocks the casbah and was the only reason to see Lost in Translation at all. The worst scene for me was when they did that karaoke montage. I was all furrowed brow and shaking my head saying: What the hell is going on here? This is brutal!

I hate Ho-hanssen.

Posted by: Kelly Booth at April 2, 2009 4:43 PM

Even after reading the review, I can't for the love of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, recall a single scene from that movie. I've never been so bored in my life...seriously! This is actually the first time I have ever mentioned that flick. I had forgotten it existed.

Posted by: Mr. Rotinaj at April 2, 2009 4:44 PM

While I respect your review and will not argue that LiT is somewhat overblown, it is still a magnificent movie in my opinion. The film captures this voyeuristic look at two people who are alone in a land of people, sights and sounds. It is about them both connecting and finding people who are similar in that they both feel isolated. She is at the start of her life, married to a jerk off hipster while he's at the end of his career, starring in Japanese liquor ads. They get close because they need a friend, and they form a close bond. The whisper at the end, brilliant and heartbreaking. The entire ending makes the movie to be honest. The two split, never to meet again, and yet, they do not need to. Why taint something so special and meaningful? Though it was a small connection, the impact is very important to both characters and their lives.
Call me crazy, but I loved Lost in Translation. Just my two cents.

Posted by: Kamikaze Feminist at April 2, 2009 4:45 PM

"...sees the two part at the airport as both are about to leave Tokyo to return to their respective miseries."

Might want to watch it before you review it. For those who enjoy the movie this ending in particular is kind of a big deal.

Not telling anyone how to do their jobs or anything.


I. J. Reilly

Posted by: I. J. Reilly at April 2, 2009 4:46 PM

"The whisper at the end, brilliant and heartbreaking. The entire ending makes the movie to be honest. The two split, never to meet again, and yet, they do not need to. Why taint something so special and meaningful?"

Totally agree. Without the whisper at the end, the movie is not worth watching.

Posted by: annoyingmouse at April 2, 2009 4:50 PM

I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned yet, but what did you all think about Broken Flowers?

"If I want to watch two bored miserable people not fuck each other, I just turn around and look at the last 30 years of my parents life, thank you very much."

And what did you think about ONCE?

Posted by: Bucko at April 2, 2009 4:51 PM

The scenes in which they went out on the town in Tokyo, clubbing and such, were awesome. Made me want to fly to Tokyo, stay up all night, maybe do some drugs, see some amazing sights, and hang out with weird/possibly scary people.

Am I remembering correctly, or did Charlotte have some sort of career she put on hold to go to Tokyo with the hipster never-around husband? I thought that was interesting, given that a lot of people assume that never happens anymore, but it does.

Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen at April 2, 2009 4:52 PM

I. J.--are you balencing on your teeny little stool, you big ol' eggplant, you?

Best metaphor ever!

Posted by: frumpiefox at April 2, 2009 4:54 PM

This movie would have been more appropriately titled Amnesia because I can’t remember anything about it, except that I hated it (and I vaguely recall karaoke). Perhaps it was intended that the point would be Lost in Translation during the journey between film and mind/memory?

Posted by: Skanktimony at April 2, 2009 5:04 PM

Are the karaoke scenes in this film what made Scarlett think she could release a Tom Waits cover album?

Posted by: Brian at April 2, 2009 5:05 PM

I didn't like it
I didn't get the hype
I liked the filming of the commercial
and I wanted that movie to end a lot sooner than it did.

I agree that if you love the actors then you can be way more forgiving. But it was too boring for all the hype and I had to slap my own face to revive myself afterwards.

Posted by: Chickaboom at April 2, 2009 5:08 PM

I hated this movie from the very first time I saw it. I thought the title was clever, and that was all.

Thank you for this.

Posted by: Kate at April 2, 2009 5:11 PM

I thought this movie could have been great -- I found it quiet, but never dull; and I liked that you didn't hear what he said to her at the end, allowing the viewer to fill in the blank.

ScarJo, of course, ruined it utterly. I saw this movie once, wept for what could have been, and have refused to ever watch it again. And casting such a beautiful woman was a mistake, they should have gone with someone more ordinary-looking. (Although a beautiful actress with more -- or, you know, ANY -- talent could have pulled it off. Think of all the plain janes that Joan Fontaine, a flawlessly gorgeous woman, played throughout her career.)

Posted by: Sarah at April 2, 2009 5:12 PM

Who doesnt love Bill Murray?! There are people that don't love Bill Murray?! Is that like that genetic thing where some people (me! Blech!) thing cilantro tastes like soap?

Posted by: Bucko at April 2, 2009 5:14 PM

Once was amazing.

Reading through, BSlim and Anastasia's comments are exactly where I am at with this movie. Going through the review I kept thinking "No. No. No!!!!". Traveling as much as I have and living in so many different countries, I can attest to the melancholy that sometimes attacks when you should be out having the time of your life.

The whisper at the end made my heart swell.

Posted by: rayliota at April 2, 2009 5:16 PM

I think I have both the evil cilantro thing and the dislike of Bill Murray (mostly) thing there, Bucko.

Posted by: Kate at April 2, 2009 5:17 PM

Mr. Pohl has begun blogging. It is as good as one would expect, given who's doing the writing.

http://www.thewaythefutureblogs.com/

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at April 2, 2009 5:17 PM

As I always do on threads of this sort, I'll register my defense of wonderful Scarlett. Y'all are mean.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at April 2, 2009 5:23 PM

Kate-

Can you justify a dislike of Bill Murray? If you don't even like Ghostbusters, then, respectfully, you can just go fuck yourself :-p

Really, though, what is it that turns you off about him? I don't think I've ever seen him in anything that I didn't like him in (I haven't yet seen Where the Buffalo Roam, though, and that's supposed to be a pile [but Peter Boyle + Bill + HST sounds great to me]).

So what is it Kate? Did he run over your bicycle?

Posted by: Bucko at April 2, 2009 5:25 PM

Dislike of Bill? Did I hear (read) right? Who said that? What horrible, horrible, soulless person said that?

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at April 2, 2009 5:29 PM

Seriously, I think that Kate is somoe kind of cybernetic vampire from the future, here to destroy the power of love.

Posted by: Bucko at April 2, 2009 5:32 PM

K.A.T.E. = Killier Android Terminating Emotions (IN THE PAST)

Posted by: Bucko at April 2, 2009 5:37 PM

"Killier" means that she's the second model, even better at her job, and is not in any way a typo.

Posted by: Bucko at April 2, 2009 5:38 PM

I only made it through about 45 minutes of Lost in Translation before turning it off, and I almost never turn off a movie once I start it. Except for this one. And Brick. And Once. All boring and overrated.

Now if only someone would write a similar review about how bloated and self-important The Royal Tenenbaums is, I could sleep a happy man tonight.

Posted by: The Pink Hulk at April 2, 2009 5:41 PM

Throwing anything vampire to a Buffy fan makes her face hurt from smiling too hard. ;)

I don't know. Anytime Bill Murray is in something I know the movie is either going to be a downer or he'll be playing a sad sack role. And there's only so much I can take...watching him gets very monotonous. I like a few movies, though Life Aquatic is the only thing that comes to mind right now (and i know that's not appreciated by a lot of die hard Bill Murray fans.)

I like him fine as a person, but I'm not a fan. I was just a wee one when I saw Ghostbusters though, so maybe I should give it another go.

Posted by: Kate at April 2, 2009 5:46 PM

I liked the part where Scarlett was walkin' around in her panties. Yum.

Posted by: Rykker at April 2, 2009 5:57 PM

Oh wait, Henry spelled it wrong twice and then right twice.

Mr. Dakaron, it's a peeve. I taught myself how to spell the damn word, and I need the world to nut up and do the same.

Posted by: Jay at April 2, 2009 6:00 PM

Now if only someone would write a similar review about how bloated and self-important The Royal Tenenbaums is, I could sleep a happy man tonight.

Pink Hulk, you take that back! You may be sleeping a happy man, but it'll be on our secret fake internet couch!

Hm. I rented LiT when it came out on DVD, and I seem to recall liking it but not thinking it was worth all the hype. I did like the story, and the slow build, and the unheard (by the viewer) whisper; but the whole experience wasn't that enjoyable somehow. I didn't dislike it, I just wasn't blown away by it. And, I have to agree with not particularly memorable assessments above. It just didn't really do it for me, "dawg". And I wanted to like it. I wanted to because I really did like the story idea.

How's that for not having an opinion, *Shadows*?! :P

Posted by: totally not Anna von Beaverplatz at all at April 2, 2009 6:01 PM

Oh, and P.S. That's good writing, Henry!

Posted by: totally not Anna von Beaverplatz at all at April 2, 2009 6:02 PM

So...what I read here is put on the captions, watch the movie in fast-forward, and slo-mo the scenes where ScarJo's less than fully dressed? It's not like that's different from any of her other movies! Rated R? Bonus!

Posted by: lordhelmet at April 2, 2009 6:05 PM

Oh and I just want to state that my opinion of this film should in NO WAY be sen as an endorsement of Sccarllett Johhannssennnen's continued non-porn career.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 2, 2009 6:09 PM

Ehhh, don't sweat it, Non-Miss BP, the Wes haters just don't get it because they're lower lifeforms. You can't get angry, they're just...limited.

Posted by: Jay at April 2, 2009 6:13 PM

Seconded, Slim.

Posted by: lordhelmet at April 2, 2009 6:25 PM

Awesome. When a movie travels this slow it better get somewhere. I wanted to like this movie because my girlfriend at the time did, but I think it's because she was a world-traveller and so it held special meaning for her because it captured a feeling from her life. I'll buy that, but I don't think it makes it a great movie. There are movies I love and defend because they capture a feeling that's very close to me, but that doesn't make them great movies. Watching the Dukes of Hazzard takes me back to when I was a tyke watching it, but it does not make it great television.

I agree with whoever said it above, Anna Faris' Lost in Translation would have been amazing.

Posted by: Eep at April 2, 2009 6:27 PM

You know what, AvB, I don't need this shit! I'm going to stay at my buddy Dave's until you realize just how good you have it at home.

Posted by: The Pink Hulk at April 2, 2009 6:35 PM

I liked the film for what it was, but more so the soundtrack. The Jesus & Mary chain song at the end is absolutely perfect...

Posted by: GreenMyEyes at April 2, 2009 6:37 PM

I love this movie so much, but it's solely based upon Bill Murray's amazing, sad, sexy performance (the part where he stares up at ScarJo while she's singing "Brass In Pocket" quietly mouthing along with the line "..so special" makes my heart explode) and the amazing soundtrack by Kevin Shields. 'Tis all.

Posted by: alison at April 2, 2009 6:45 PM

I watched this right around the time I watched Donnie Darko, and I walked around from both going, "Huh?" Except then I was like, Donnie Darko was awesome, and Lost in Translation was, well, for me, not.

Posted by: Ariel at April 2, 2009 8:09 PM

gahhhhhhhahhhhhhhh! What?? Am I seriously reading all this? Do all movies require a raging, pulsating dramatic arc to be deemed interesting? Can we not sit and enjoy something because--finally--it is quiet and intimate and encompasses that muted feeling we all wake up with sometimes?

When I saw this in the theatre there were two women in front of me, and one leaned over to the next and whispered, "When is something going to HAPPEN?" I was fucking flabbergasted. Are we really that ADD? Holy shit, hold up--"it" is happening, right now, as you're watching it. Real life unfolding delicately, deliberately. Embrace it for sec'. Jesus. And if, when you're finished, you still feel hard-up for some hardcore drama, then go watch "Revolutionary Road". There's enough drama there to bring a new season of "The O.C." back into action. Fucking hell.

Posted by: Sapphiar at April 2, 2009 8:24 PM

After all the hoopla about wearing Chuck Taylors under the big frou-frou dresses,

That's when I just decided Sofia Coppola was a joke. Trying too damn hard.

Posted by: figgy at April 2, 2009 8:29 PM

This is my favorite modern movie of all time. Pajiba you stab me.

As someone who does have a real base or home (I seem to move all over the world all the time) this film reminds me of friends you make and relationships you form that are tied to a specific place and time, never to be found again, because it wasn't ever home.

Scarlett's character was blank enough I could pretend it was me. Her character was in a place where she was an observer of life, not an actor in the life of Tokyo itself. She was quiet and confused. Murray's character spurs her to act.

The whisper was the summation of that relationship, the validation that it was real, a a moment to special for the audience to hear. I fucking love this movie. I will watch it again and again.

Pajiba you are hard-hearted and wrong.

Thats it.

Posted by: Gigi at April 2, 2009 8:30 PM

LiT does not have a plot; it has a premise.

And not much else.

Posted by: TL at April 2, 2009 8:33 PM

I have seen this movie marketed as a comedy in various places (Oregon, MN, Indiana, Australia) and a drama in others (Japan, CA, MA) My experience with this is that people who think it is a comedy tend to hate it. Others are more on the fence.

Posted by: Gigi at April 2, 2009 8:34 PM

Fucking rights, Gigi.

Posted by: Sapphiar at April 2, 2009 8:35 PM

On this idea of a big explosive dramatic arc, I think it's true that Americans have become so used to that that a lot of us have a hard time with anything else. I keep thinking of a line from the movie Amadeus where someone is bitching about Mozart's latest composition and they say "he didn't give the audience a big bang! To let them know when to clap!" Because otherwise, you know, they would have been just befuddled at the cessation of music.

I really like quiet, slow-building films. Short or long ones, doesn't matter. I like character studies, I like food for thought.

Has anyone here seen the independent film George Washington? I SWEAR someone has to review it for Pajiba. An underappreciated gem (and a little known one, too). It's several years old (eight? ten?) and amazing. It's not loud, it doesn't have a huge dramatic arc, but oh my God. It's not about the president, by the way. I used to do a brief film studies unit with eighth graders (it was heaven) and this was the one film they watched in its entirety. There was so much to notice, so much to talk about, so much to see, and yet there were no big car crashes or explosions or huge reveals. The main characters (in fact, almost the only characters) are a bunch of young teens in South Carolina during the Bush I years. They're very poor. For all of the actors, it was their first job and they were incredible.

There's a story there, a plot there, but it's more subtle than we're used to. I hesitate to even mention this movie, but I've heard a lot of people say Napoleon Dynamite has no plot and "nothing happens." Bullshit: the pivotal moment is when he's in that karate studio and the guy says "No more going it alone, it's the buddy system from here on out. You've got to have someone backing you up at ALL TIMES." Napoleon sits up straighter, this has struck him. It's his new way to deal with bullies, with rejection, with his stupid life. Pedro is his buddy and with him, he does ok. It's just about the difference between going it alone and having a friend at your side, and what's more universal than that?

Sorry, didn't mean to write a dissertation.

Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen at April 2, 2009 8:50 PM

Well fucking said, Sapphiar!

Posted by: Lainey at April 2, 2009 8:50 PM

Well, I think since Gigi and Sapphiar (amongst others) are so passionate about it, perhaps I'll have to watch it again and see if I feel differently about it now than I remember. Maybe it'll turn out I love it after all.

Posted by: totally not Anna von Beaverplatz at all at April 2, 2009 8:51 PM

This movie has a lot going for it. The aesthetically pleasing ms. Johanssen (What? She's gorgeous! And if you don't read the gossip sites you don't have to hate her. So there!) and of course the very funny mr. Murray. Usually that would be enough. But HOLY HELL THIS MOVIE WAS A FUCKING DOWNER!

Semi profound, drunken, late night conversations with complete strangers in random bars (preferably in foreign countries) are pretty much the grease in my wheels. And they managed to fuck THAT up. For that, they can kiss my crusty donkey's tail!

Posted by: Pants at April 2, 2009 8:52 PM

Merde! (Pardon my French)

Did I really just use the crusty tail reference twice in one hour? I blame the wine. And Korsakoff's...

Posted by: Pants at April 2, 2009 8:56 PM

Hah! Thanks, Lainey.

And cheers to Beaverplatz to give it another go. And while I totally raged up there, I do agree how hype around any movie only equals disaster. I remember being sorely disappointed by "The Game" after everyone was shitting their pants over how awesome it was. 'Cause... What? Really? It... It was all a game? Like... The movie's over now? Ahhh, fuck OFF.

Posted by: Sapphiar at April 2, 2009 9:17 PM

I'm honestly surprised such a dullfest of a movie can create such passionate feelings from people on either side of the fence. It's not worth it!

Posted by: figgy at April 2, 2009 9:51 PM

I try to refrain from personal attacks but you, sir, are a heathen. You sound like the only cultural enrichment you've had comes from Lost message boards and the John Tesh radio program. Straw man after complete hallucination after willful obliviating dullard analysis. No New Wave Film for you, huh? Czech flicks make you want to condemn art in the spirit of Socialism. No lessons learned without a three-part arc. Shit, no movie unless there's a lesson learned. Fie, sir, fie.

oh yeah--AvB, I am pretty sure DR already reviewed George Washington. He don't let Gordon Green's slip through the cracks in this place.

I love Lost in Translation. And I think you're conflating your Scarjo. The character beats are correct. Sofia makes weaknesses of an Anna Faris or Giovanni Ribisi or Percochest Yo work seamlessly.

Posted by: Jackseppelin at April 2, 2009 10:25 PM

figgy, I don't know if I can explain it, but for me, I watched it at a time when it just. fit. I felt like such an outsider. I was sooo starved for intellectual conversation. I was bored, but not totally able to change my circumstances and when I saw this movie, I related SO much to each of them.

I thought it captured the very real feelings of being kind of trapped in a situation of your own making. I thought the melancholy and slight humor was touching. For me, it felt personal and intimate.

Posted by: Lainey at April 2, 2009 10:36 PM

-> Sapphiar.

I don't have ADD and my problem with this movie is not the lack of explosions and whatnot. I just find it painfully boring watching two grown people, incapable of making a simple choice to better their lives. All they had to do, was to ditch their boring relationships and jobs...take a chance. People do it every day!

I may take a simple approach to this, but in my world there's only the one solution to the Gordian Knot. This movie was imo an attempt to be clever, just for the sake of being clever. I think ones opinion depends on ones own take on these kind of problems.

Hope it makes sense...it's almost 5 am. here in Denmark. (Insert red-eyed smiley).

Posted by: Mr. Rotinaj at April 2, 2009 10:51 PM

As much as this movie is a snoozefest, It inspired my love for Bill Murray, so I owe it that.

Posted by: Agente Provocatrice at April 2, 2009 11:01 PM

Absolutely no disrespect intended, Mr. Rotinaj and I sincerely hope you won't take this as any type of attack, but really? Life is so simple that if your relationship hits a (temporary) roadblock or your job is (occasionally) boring, leave? Just pack your shit and go?

There are consequences and ripples that affect other people. To say that someone can just ditch their lives and make a simple choice because of feelings of ennui when one is alone in a foreign country, just smacks of more self-centered-ness than this is in this movie. At least the two characters weren't being completely selfish and hurting other people. They were just trying to find *some* joy in the midst of their responsibilities.

Now, that said, if this movie had covered several years in the lives of these people and they were like this for YEARS, I would agree with you. But, this was a snapshot of a short period of time.

I'll shut up about it now because I certainly don't believe I can change anyone's mind about the movie and I'm (despite evidence to the contrary) not that invested in changing opinions about it. I just really like it and to me, it doesn't matter that nothing really happened. It made me feel something, which is considerably more than I can say about the majority of the movies I've seen lately.

Posted by: Lainey at April 2, 2009 11:12 PM

*than is in this movie.
It makes slightly more sense without the extra "this".

Posted by: Lainey at April 2, 2009 11:15 PM

Jackseppelin Nope, I checked. No George Washington review on pajiba. His second film was mentioned in a list of movies, but no review of that one.

I nearly missed your note to me, as AvB is a different person. I'm AB. Really she and I should just get together and figure out some different names to end the confusion altogether. I really want to be Snuggiepants the Deathbringer.

Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen at April 2, 2009 11:41 PM

It's funny that you posted this review today, because I was just thinking about how much I love this movie. Yeah, sure it's slow and Scarlet isn't exactly the best starlet to hit the silver screen, but it's a unique drama that doesn't take the easy or typical route to tell a story.

It's a quiet, beautiful film that as my friend describes it, "Hits you like a truck full of bricks that is carrying trucks full of other bricks."

Posted by: PenguinInc at April 2, 2009 11:56 PM

I love watching the schism emerge between lovers and haters. It's a character flaw, I guess. And it's double bonus points when BSlim and I emerge on the same side of the line.

I think the reviewer is missing the point, it was SUPPOSED to be dull. The two characters were in despair, alone, in a completely foreign culture. It wasn't supposed to be Black Rain dude.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 2, 2009 3:38 PM

Amen.

I've seen a couple of commenters start to make the point that I want to make, but they've stopped short. The thing I love most about this movie is how accurately it captures the expatriate experience. I loved this move the first time I saw it, and I've continued to love it every time I watch it on the DVD that I carry with me in my travel bag -- but I also knew that most people wouldn't get it. I'm used to it now.

The hotel in that movie could pass for any generic Hyatt in any foreign capital in the world today. In fact, I'm certain I've stayed at the hotel in that movie despite the fact that the credits tell me otherwise -- that's how well the producers did their job (the Tokyo Park Hyatt looks and feels remarkably like the New Otani or the Intercontinental or...). The jet-lagged disorientation, the hotel bar ennui, the pseudo-romantic traipse through an alien landscape...they capture every iota.

I forgive Henry the review for the simple fact that it's evident from it that he's never traveled outside whatever his native country is. And just to cover all my bases: on the off chance that Henry has indeed engaged in foreign travel it then becomes evident that he hasn't been paying attention...

Posted by: Che Grovera at April 3, 2009 12:02 AM

"The hotel in that movie could pass for any generic Hyatt in any foreign capital in the world today. In fact, I'm certain I've stayed at the hotel in that movie despite the fact that the credits tell me otherwise "

But looking out those windows at the view...There is only one tokyo.

The real star of this movie is Japan.

Posted by: Some Guy at April 3, 2009 12:12 AM

Lainey, absolutely no offense taken. I'm also just trying to explain myself, not changing anybodys mind. I have left a job and 5-year relationship, not in anger, but because neither was leading anywhere. It came as quite a sudden realization and when you get that gut feeling the choice is already made. I never regretted ending things in a decent way, before it got ugly.

Had my life turned out differently, I might have seen this movie in a another light...who knows? Good thing You enjoyed it...that's what matters. I even got an interresting conversation out of it, so now I can't say anylonger that it was a complete waste of time...hehe.

Posted by: Mr. Rotinaj at April 3, 2009 12:24 AM

@ Sapphiar: Damn Straight.

@totally not Anna von Beaverplatz at all:

Next time you watch it make sure you are feeling lazy and a bit louche. Sip a vodka tonics or pot of tea (depending on how louche) and imagine you are the tourist. Then, just let the movie flow over you.

Think of it this way: watching this movie is like sitting in a japanese zen garden for an hour. Which, if you've ever had a chance to do, is both utterly boring and at the same time, incredibly compelling. It is bliss.

Posted by: Gigi at April 3, 2009 12:28 AM

Asian capitals have a remarkable sameness, Some Guy. I'm partial to Seoul, myself -- but you get the same experience in Singapore, KL or Shangahi (sure, Shangahi isn't the capital, but Beijing is rough compared to the others and Shanghai has the requisite homogenized feel to it). I think Lit could have been set in any of the above and achieved the same result -- Tokyo just has the benefit of seeming like it's more familiar to an American audience.

Posted by: Che Grovera at April 3, 2009 12:29 AM

I disliked this movie so much. It was boring and ScarJo was terrible in it. She did absolutely no acting in it.

I also thought the ignorance and stupidity displayed in this movie bordered on racism. I can understand what Lainey is saying- that it's just regional observations that a film it's making when it decides to pinpoint those differences. But I thought they were trying to capitalize on those differences to make those main characters feel lonely. "Oh look, they are all speaking a foreign language that sounds funny and I can't understand, so I am so lonely and unable to enjoy myself in Tokyo." Seriously? No shit, the country's foreign to you, and no shit, the culture is different, but the characters sure as hell weren't gonna learn anything about it by staying in their hotels or just simply going to the tourist-approved places. I guess it was pretty cool that they hung out with that one Japanese guy, but the rest of the time they were feeling sorry for themselves because they felt out of place in a foreign country! Why is there a movie about this? This would be a short paragraph in a someone's travel blog, " Most of the locals were pretty friendly, even though I could never understand what they were saying. Just trying to get a soda here is hard, but everyone really likes me because I am white, so I guess that's cool."

Also, I dislike Tokyo so immensely, but I guess I can understand why Coppola chose it-- it looks great on film and i guess it makes the characters feel even lonelier with its bigness. Or something.

Whatever. Sofia is only famous because of Daddy. I'm glad you wrote about how it's overrated. Because it is. You wanna know how much I dislike this movie? I had the biggest crush on this boy for about 4 months, and then we were talking about movies, and he said that his favorite movie of all time was Lost in Translation. And I'm like, seriously? Because first of all, "of all time" is a pretty long time to just have one favorite movie. Then I asked him why, and he said that ScarJo was so "amazing" in it. "Really? You mean her butt and that same-pouty-lipped acting throughout the entire thing?" I laughed in his face, and my crush on him was very promptly gone.

God, I dislike this movie so much. Rant over.

Posted by: dene chen at April 3, 2009 1:46 AM

And Brick is awesome, Pink Hulk. You should try watching it for real- I turned on the subtitles (I know I'm a dork who has hearing issues)- because I thought it was just beautiful/awesome/exciting.

Posted by: dene chen at April 3, 2009 1:53 AM

I'm baffled that the subtleties of this gem are apparently lost on such a large section of Pajiba's readership. To echo Che Grovera's sentiment, perhaps this is because most of us have not lived internationally in an environment where you do not understand the language, and where much of the cultural nuances surrounding you are confusing, or lost.

I really enjoyed Lost in Tranlation's simplicity and detachment, and, as someone who has lived in Japan, the texture of the film felt, and continues to feel very familiar and genuine.

Henry, I think that your review, with its weak analogies, clunky superlatives, and "here's the entire plot in chronological order" opening, appears to have missed the point.

Posted by: JQ at April 3, 2009 2:39 AM

they dont part at the airport.
you might want to actually see the movie all the way through...

Posted by: krifar at April 3, 2009 2:58 AM

dene chen, how come you said everything I wanted to say only way better? talking of dumb (me, i mean). Just cause the movie is slow and delicate doesn't mean I give a flying fuck about the feeling and sentiment it's trying to portrait. Just because everyone feels the same way in a certain situation that sentiment needs to be celebrated.
and that's exactly what the movie does, not with a big fanfare, yet not the less does.

Posted by: rio at April 3, 2009 8:23 AM

I agree completely with the lovers - the pace and quiet tone of the film was exactly why I enjoyed it so much.
I thought it captured perfectly the lonliness of being in a strange city across the world. Particularly for two people who are there briefly - there isn't a lot of scope to make friends and the difference in time zones can make you feel isolated. I had the same experience when I was in New York (I'm from New Zealand) when I was 20. A connection between to people who are a little lost.
I love that their relationship is not packaged in a pretty box at the end. I find it beautiful.
ScarJo may not be the greatest actress but, as has been said before, she encapsulates the recent graduate who suddenly finds herself without direction and following someone else's dream.
Mr. Rotinaj - I don't think either of them (Bob or Charlotte) want out of their relationships. I think they're both at a point where they feel disillusioned by them.
I think there's something to be said for a film that puts you in someone else's life for a moment in time and shows you the subtleties and intimate moments in everyday nothingness.

Posted by: missh at April 3, 2009 9:24 AM

(I know I'm a dork who has hearing issues)

Hearing issues don't make you a dork! I have hearing issues too, and I put the subtitles on everything, including episodes of Buffy I have seen dozens of times. Actually, I find it's helped me to become really quick at reading them so I can concentrate on the film, and the interactions between the characters rather than just the words, so I can understand foreign language films better.

Take pride in your "dork"dom!

Also, I found Brick enjoyable.

And, I'm totally calling AB "Snuggiepants the Deathbringer" from now on.

Posted by: totally not Anna von Beaverplatz at all at April 3, 2009 9:37 AM

I have to agree with JQ and Che. It's pretty obvious who has/has not experienced jet lag, particularly in Asia which is way more disorienting than Europe. The trip to Japan is about 14 hours on a plane and then you are met with Tokyo's fatastic neon landscape and self-opening curtains. Imagine sleepwalking and you'll understand the tone Sophia Coppola aimed for.

I liked the movie but understood all the Engrish quite easily and thought that bit was a little too gimmicky "Lick my stocking"- eh.

Posted by: amanda47 at April 3, 2009 10:17 AM

Hey the former Anastasia Beaverhausen here (why do I always choose such long names???).

AvBI ALWAYS put on the subtitles if they're available. I hate the kind that are in the black rectangles because they sometimes block out parts of the picture, but otherwise I love them. My daughter now loves subtitles, but the husband can't get down with them.

I am assuming I'm a wierd one, since I've never been out of my own country but Lost in Translation really resonated with me. I had always assumed it's because Murray and the director and ScarJo or whatever her name is did a decent job relaying that, you know? The sense of isolation practially hits you in the head when you watch it, how could I have not gotten that? They're semi-trapped for the time being. The night out in the clubs and other evenings are them just deciding fuck it, let's enjoy ourselves while we're being miserable.

Plus I'm a sucker for movies with genuine platonic male-female friendships. I find they are too rare, both in film and in life.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at April 3, 2009 10:47 AM

Sofia Coppola cannot make a movie that's not aesthetically-driven. She just can't. All of her movies are images and moods strung together that lend nothing to a compelling or cohesive whole. She's good at that small part of what she does, but she's not good at all that she does. I must admit, also, to a prejudice against people who enter THE SAME DAMN PROFESSION as their high-profile, extraordinarily successful and talented parents. I mean, seriously - I'd be embarrassed by the inevitable comparisons (in which I'd fall short) and the plain fact that she never, ever, ever would've gotten where she is without her father.

Posted by: samantha t at April 3, 2009 11:09 AM

I fell asleep and never bothered again.

Posted by: Captain Steve at April 3, 2009 11:15 AM

I couldn't stand Lost in Translation and couldn't understand the hype. Then one day I was watching Ghostworld and it dawned on me. Lost in Translation was about someone searching for who they are. After that I liked it.

Posted by: Chalupa at April 3, 2009 12:16 PM

I rarely post and I don't like posting links but this seemed relevant. Anyone who found their way to Pajiba via Cracked.com is probably familiar with this guy's work. He decided to play with the Lost in Translation script a little. Enjoy..

http://jaypinkerton.com/2004/02/04/lost-in-translation/

Posted by: Jon at April 3, 2009 1:26 PM

The film beats the life out of the viewer with its abominable subtlety, and then, just when you think you’re about to get some sort of payoff, a whisper. A fucking whisper.

In that case, do not see Wong Kar Wai's In the Mood for Love. But no, seriously, you must see In the Mood for Love, it is amazing and deals with similar themes.

I agree with your Napoleon Dynamite plot synopsis, Anastasia Beaverhausen-SnuggieDeathBringerPants. I had to watch the movie a couple of times before I realized what the movie was all about.

P.S.: Dear Bucko, you are my new favorite. Please accept this Internet Stalker Tracking Device (tm).

Posted by: phquaryn at April 3, 2009 2:39 PM

Yes! Yes! I agree with everything- and it's why I love the film so much!

'Cuz here's the thing. When you're a bored, lonely twentysomething, bored lonely media resonates. Nothing exciting happened in the film, no one learned anything, no one dealt with any of the humongous issues that enveloped them like a dense fog, and yet... and yet, for a moment, they almost kinda enjoyed something? Even an unremarkable something- they enjoyed it. And it felt so good to enjoy something again. For Charlotte and Bob, it was their time together; for this bored and lonely twentysomething, it was my time with them.
I shall defend this film with my internet-life, even in the face of the MurderTank.

Posted by: Sweetie Dahling at April 3, 2009 3:33 PM

I certainly understand the words you are speaking, but I really liked this movie. Bill Murray is the most honest actor around, I think he's better than Norton and Bale etc, just because his ego has completely matured. He's just so damn aware of what he's doing and an actor that can make his failings his strengths - whoo!

But then again, I believe that more interesting stuff goes on in an hour in the dentist's waiting room than most people acknowledge. That or I'm REALLY easily entertained.

Posted by: replica at April 3, 2009 3:59 PM

this movie had me wishing for the wild frenzy of The Straight Story.

Posted by: jimmy at April 3, 2009 4:03 PM

I liked this too, nothing is supposed to happen. And the bit where we stare at the back of ScarJo and the doctor's head while he tells her all about her X-ray and we have NO IDEA what is going on. That was really funny, and you could see how isolating it would be.
Of course the whole point of the movie is to not understand the Japanese, but I'd still like to know what they said. Apparently when the woman in the studio is saying 'with intensity' the director was being really pissed off with Bill Murray for wasting time, when every minute in the studio was costing them a fortune.

Also Brick is amazing, that really is one of my all time favourite films.

Posted by: ChrisD at April 3, 2009 4:44 PM

Um....did you even watch the movie the whole way through? there is no parting scene at an airport at the end, because SJ's character stays in Tokyo. And you've gotten it completely wrong - they don't form any kind of romantic attachment at all. I think in being preoccupied with wanting to write off the movie you forgot that you should have probably watched it before you "reviewed" it.

I mean, at least I read through your whole review before deciding to comment on it's "shortcomings [that are] so glaringly obvious"

Posted by: Smiley at April 4, 2009 12:49 AM

Lost in Translation... More like Suck in Suck-suck-a-suck-ation. (Yeah spent 20 minutes to myself to come up with that)

I'd consider punching myself in the groin for an hour and a half a better use of my time then watching Lost in Translation.

Posted by: RonnyK at April 4, 2009 11:27 AM

Others have already said it better than I have, so I'm not going to go into detail.s I'll just say that I love this movie. It really meant something to me the first time I watched it, and I've watched it multiple times since, and it gets better every damn time. I think it's one of those movies that resonates with some people, and those are the people it was meant for. Maybe movies like this don't have to speak to every single person who watches them.

Posted by: Elfrieda at April 5, 2009 2:14 AM

Jeni: I did spend the quite a bit of time yelling at Scarlett Johansson to put on some freakin' pants already. If it's cold enough inside to layer on top, there's no excuse for not wearing pants.

Sez you. Around Lair Id, that's the favored outfit by both of us. Mmmmmm . . . Mrs Id in nothing but a sweatshirt . .

I think that's a visual statement of the loneliness throughout the film. You wear such an outfit to be comfortable around your mate. Charlotte's mate is nowhere to be found.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at April 5, 2009 10:13 AM

Thank god. Here is the thing: I was supposed to like this movie. I could not have been a more perfectly targeted audience if the studio had custom-ordered me from central casting. I saw this on the most awkward of "dates" with the German friend-of-a-friend, in Berlin, the afternoon after the morning during which I lost my virginity. And I hated it.

If this movie is lost on an emotionally muddled but slightly punch-drunk American, in the middle of big city where she doesn't speak the language, who is still experiencing the physical pleasure/pain of recent devirginization, then it just fucking doesn't hit home.

ps. For cynics, I watched it again upon my return to the states. Still blew.

pps. Everyone should loose their virginity to a foreign friend of a friend after a week-long pretend romance. Awkward, but delightful.

Posted by: Leah at April 5, 2009 2:16 PM

...but the rest of the time they were feeling sorry for themselves because they felt out of place in a foreign country!
I actually could not disagree more, dene chen. Yes, they did feel out of place, but as they continued to explore Tokyo, they relaxed and had more fun with it, which only highlighted the fact that the reason for their unhappiness was their own LIVES. Now, whether you dislike the "poor little rich girl/guy" storyline is a different matter, but the story at its heart is NOT about two travelers in culture shock, in my opinion.

I saw this with a guy who also thought this movie was racist. I was so surprised, because I was completely enchanted with it! Yes, Coppola does poke fun, but I didn't read any malice in it. I saw the humor as divided between Japanese absurdity (and as a resident of Japan, I can confirm that yes, it is EXACTLY that absurd) and the characters' confusion. It's also not like she exaggerated anything just to mine for laughs. Every detail, funny or otherwise, is spot on. Foreign travel is filled with amazement, joy, and reflection, but it is also filled with plenty of exhaustion, confusion, frustration, and even flat-out despair. Though I have traveled to many great countries across the world, I have found that Tokyo multiplies all these emotions by ten. It’s an immensely difficult city, but if it manages to suck you in, it does so completely.

Perhaps others are right, that this movie has to "hit" you right. I saw it in college when I was feeling typically “lost.” I had just applied for a summer job in China and was taking Japanese classes with the hope of later going to Japan. I don’t know why—I can’t pinpoint anything in particular that drew me to it—I was just looking for something, and felt like it was hidden somewhere in there. (That sounds trite, but it’s the best I can come up with.) Seeing this movie cemented my desire to experience it. The next time I saw it was after I had been here for a few months, and it hit me again, but of course in a totally different way. Years later, I still watch it occasionally and remember when the city looked to me like it does to the two leads. I’m happy to feel at home here, but at the same time, I like the reminder of what a foreign city is like to new eyes.

As a final opinion—sorry for the thesis—I am partial to character studies over plot-driven films/books. I read Raymond Carver short stories but get antsy reading mysteries; I’ll be absorbed in a film like LiT but have to stop action movies at every scene change to make sure I have the story straight. But that’s just me.

Posted by: Pistachio at April 6, 2009 4:21 AM

I loved Lost in Translation. It is among my favourite movies of all time.

I think you may have missed the mark with your review here. The whole film is about subtlety, it juxtaposes almost every other Hollywood film. The plot is believable, and the characters are real. All wrapped up into a gorgeous Japanese backdrop, and the movie is a masterpiece.

I really think this is a hate-it-or-love-it film. It separates those who have an attention span greater than a 5 year old, and those who do not.

Posted by: Tim at April 10, 2009 10:30 AM

Coppola lost me at the scene where Murray and Johannson, having just returned from a wonderful night out with HER FRIENDS (She is SO FAR from alone!), tiptoe past Anna Faris' poor lonely character, who is drunk and singing karaoke in the bar. I took the contempt shown for that character rather personally - I am much more likely to mispronounce words, get drunk, and try too hard when I am feeling out of place, than to mope around artistically and look hip.

The mood of displacement, ennui, vague homesickness was captured - right on. Beautiful atmosphere, just like in "Virgin Suicides." But I felt this movie was the idiosyncratic statement of the filmmaker, rather than just a "story," and her attitude toward the "others" in the movie - locals, her husband, Faris - made me dislike her immensely, and I was no longer on her side. I am pretty sure I wouldn't pass muster as a companion, either, so why am I here with them? I'll be in the lounge...

Posted by: litorlaugh at April 27, 2009 3:29 PM